Some people can think that if tax burden increases the size of the tables in the restaurants is reduced. If tax burden increases the quantity of the menus is reduced and the quality of the ingredients will be also reduced, using those less common so far. All of this, assuming we should eat healthier, more respectful, and sustainable food.

Some people can think that while tax burden increases on vehicles and fuels, the cylinder capacity of passenger cars is reduced. If tax burden keeps increasing most of the drivers will change cars for motorcycles, and even motorcycles for bicycles. All of this, assuming we will have a more respectful and sustainable mobility.

Some people can think that while tax burden increases on housing, living space will be reduced, and if tax burden keeps increasing houses will be built with recycled materials whose effects on the health of the inhabitants may not be known. If tax burden keeps increasing many citizens may change the situation of owners for that of rented. All of this, assuming that it will be for a more respectful and sustainable housing.

Some people can think that while tax burden increases and laws on the medicine development the number of molecules available for public health will be reduced. If they keep increasing also increases the offer of generic products and that can lead to a lack of access to medicines of quality. All of this, assuming that we will have a safer a more environmentally friendly healthcare.

The following question arises from Transparency 多the decrease in the quality service of restaurants, the increase of rented, the increase of the use of bicycles and the difficulty of access to quality public health is due to an increase of tax burden? May they be due to the intention to achieve a more sustainable style of society? Are they the result of a mismatch between the regulatory effort and reality or simply unexpected results of a good regulatory intention?